Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
I ain't a grunt, never have been, and likely never will be. I won't give a dissertation on my opinions, just a literary nod to the main points:

I don't like the AR platform. It's not because it sucks ergonomically, or is necessarily unreliable. Neither are currently true. I think it's a fine varmint gun. Ditto the 5.56 round.

I'm also hoping to see wider adoption of the SCAR platform. I don't really care for plastic guns, but the platform offers one REDICULOUSLY critical advantage; adaptability for changing missions.

Speaking as a civilian of large stature, who buys my own ammo, I prefer a round that does the trick the first time, even at the cost of more weight and recoil, rather than a round that I can carry more of and control better in automatic fire. And I don't particularly care about straining the enemy's logistics by forcing them to deal with wounded soldiers. Caskets may be cheaper than hospitals, but corpses don't shoot back.

That's my (possibly badly uninformed) $.02.
 
I have to agree with Fred. The M4 is the M1 Carbine of its day. I has uses and I am sure there are plenty that will back up it's effectiveness. But and this is the big but, it is not a long distance weapon. The reason M855 was brought into action was the threat of a European war and M193 lack of penetration at distance. If my memory is correct the round had to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 200 meters. The guvment admitted this in the late 70's.

If we think in terms of WWII, we had subguns (Thompson, Greasegun), M1 Carbines, M1 Garands and BAR's in any particular squad. Tactically you had the short, medium and long range covered. I know logistics was a ***** but it worked for us.

Now we have a jack of all trades rifle/carbine that is asked to do all and be all. Not fair the the soldier and not fair the rifle/carbine. The right tool for the job, whatever that may be is what is needed.

I have followed all the 6mm type discussions for the do it all rifles. I don't think that is the answer. The right tool for the job is what is needed no mater what that may be.

JMHO, Bill
 
The Bolt action sniper rifle is super expensive.

Savage heavy barreled .308's with super sniper scopes would be right around 1k apiece. I don't think everyone needs a M40, or whatever it's designation is.

The M-4 is the finest assault rifle in today's world.

It's your lie, tell it any way you want to.:)

Also let me know when the taliban have A10s,Pave Lows, Tanks, and F16s; then we still wouldn't be outgunned. If the enemy is 500 meters away or more wouldn't you just have your TacP call in air support?

Air support is a waste of money if you are fired on by an "insurgent" armed with a disposable grade weapon who then runs and hides while the infidels rain down fire and brimstone on women and children with a million dollar bombing run.

Unlike the M14 the British were required to modify their FAL’s to get them to work reliably in Yemen. (read that as the FAL’s took a dump because of middle eastern dust and sand)

Sand cut carriers worked for the hebrews.

Yup, but if the Fanboy’s give up the AR15/M16/M4 family for a more robust round and possibly rifle? (SCAR 7.62 anyone?

As though that were a superior, more proven weapon than the FAL. FN just makes high priced stuff to sell these days, not anything that is actually worth what they are asking for it.

Issue the troops M1 Garands.

They would whine about weight and recoil until they realized you can actually be effective on medium and larger size game at range with them.

I can't believe you guys buy this BS for every one of these "our troops are outgunned" news stories

Of course they aren't outgunned, they just suffer from inferior tactics against armed bands of guerillas who ambush and run.
 
Ironically, American doughboys in World War I were better trained and equipped for Afghanistan-style firefights than today's GIs.

Sure -- look how well things in Afghanistan worked out for the British in Afghanistan around the same time frame, with pretty much the same (or better) equipment than the WW1 US military and probably the most vast resevoir of small war experience on the planet at the time. :rolleyes:

Not to mention the fact that the WW1 Doughboy (and his foreign counterparts) could rarely hit anything at more than a couple hundred meters unless the enemy was obliging enough to walk towards him slowly in open order. The inability of troops in that war and the next one to get the job done reliably with their service rifles is what led to the creation of the assault rifle -- and accompanying huge improvements in training.

Of course they aren't outgunned, they just suffer from inferior tactics against armed bands of guerillas who ambush and run.

From another (perhaps more informed . . .) perspective, the Afghans mostly want to engage from extreme range because if they come closer, to real effective ambush range, they usually die, even when they get off the first shots.
 
Sure -- look how well things in Afghanistan worked out for the British in Afghanistan around the same time frame, with pretty much the same (or better) equipment than the WW1 US military and probably the most vast resevoir of small war experience on the planet at the time.

Hey, even the Russians with their AK's didn't cut it. Doubt an M4 will change anything.

Sounds like an FAL job.

From another (perhaps more informed . . .) perspective, the Afghans mostly want to engage from extreme range because if they come closer, to real effective ambush range, they usually die, even when they get off the first shots.

No, they engage at extreme range because shooting and running is an effective tactic in and of itself against a mighty occupational military force like ours. We are losing, that is clear. Their shoot a few, hit fewer, and run like a coward tactics will bring them victory, just not in the sense the average American sees "victory" as.

Just remember, this was Russia's Vietnam.
 
What's your military experience with the 5.56 Fireside?

Knowing better than to allow myself to be sent into battle at 500 meters with anything larger than a prairie dog.:)
 
An AR10 is NOT an M110. It's similar in that it resembles an AR10 style rifle with respect to outward appearance and caliber, but the M110 is more refined and precise. that's why it's more expensive.
 
Knowing better than to allow myself to be sent into battle at 500 meters with anything larger than a prairie dog.
That's what I thought. No offense, but your opinion in these matters is just about as good as the egghead who thought the 5.56 looked good on paper back in the lab. It always seems to be the civilian shooters are the ones who complain the most about the 5.56 round. I wish there was some sort of credential verifier before you could post in these 5.56 bashing threads.
 
That's what I thought.

So you were prejudging me then?

No offense, but your opinion in these matters is just about as good as the egghead who thought the 5.56 looked good on paper back in the lab.

There is no need for name calling or insinuations.

It always seems to be the civilian shooters are the ones who complain the most about the 5.56 round.

Because there are more civilian shooters than military ones.

I wish there was some sort of credential verifier before you could post in these 5.56 bashing threads.

Not bashing it at all. Even the military lists max effective range at 580 yards or thereabouts. I think the .223 cartridge is a very good one, and the AR/M4 pretty decent especially considering the aftermarket parts availability. But you still have to come to grips with the limitations of what you are using.

Then again I suppose you have full confidence in the rifle at that range in which case I am happy for you. I don't. I'm not seeing the big deal about disagreeing.
 
So you were prejudging me then?
Yes, and I was right. Like I said most of the complaints about the 5.56 do not come from the .Mil
There is no need for name calling or insinuations.
In no way did I call you a name in this statement:
No offense, but your opinion in these matters is just about as good as the egghead who thought the 5.56 looked good on paper back in the lab.
I was just stating how valuable your opinion, hell my opinion is in this matter(not very much).
 
I am leaving again soon, I am fine with my M-4 and the heavy guns on the turret. I don't plan on using anything other than an M-16 pattern rifle as long as I'm in the military. And I have much bigger things to complain about.

And Chieftain, A lot of what you say may be argued effectively, it's just a matter of whether or not it makes enough of a difference to switch. All of their replacement plans have fizzled. I'll use more effective round if it becomes available, but I like the way SS109 shreds just fine. And the difference between a SAW and a rifle at range is that the SAW puts a whole lot MORE steel core rounds on target than the rifle. It is also more effective at penetrating armor at that range than the AP rounds from the 240.
 
Gee who didnt know this BS would show up the night I joined this form. I was going to go off in a tirade like I often do when I see such post but being new, I wont.

I used the M16A1 in combat agaist the AK, I shoot (service rifle) high power using the AR. I've coached rifle teams (I was OIC of the AKNG Marksmanship Unit, and Coach of the rifle team) using ARs,

Based on my experience with the AR, I've disided not to debate it vertues with any non-combatant who hasnt used the rifle except to say, that article is HORSE PUCKY
 
Long range shooting

I've only used an ar for highpower for a couple of yrs,used Burger 70vld's for 600 slow prone.Would have had to go to match upper to continue[eyes],and I don't find the funds for serious highpower and travel. Ar15 was ok though.
I'm a vet, USN hole snipe, rate almost gone now with new tech.
I've used a varity of rifles and calibers for hunting,and have a couple of Magnums that will cause bad shooting habits.With the popularity of .338 Lapua I thought everyone who was a sniper /marksman would have to have something like that. [.338RUM is half the pricefor ammo]I would hope that their would be some options for those who can and would use a bit more rifle for picking off large varments.I believe Pacnor has barreled up a few for such a purpose.
On the downside,Many Magnums have a lot of recoil in hunting weight arms,and ammo is more weight. As a side note,a 338RUM has about as much energy at 500 as a 243 has at the muzzle.
Ron Barrett Varment Rifles might make a few happy.
 
Sure -- look how well things in Afghanistan worked out for the British in Afghanistan around the same time frame, with pretty much the same (or better) equipment than the WW1 US military and probably the most vast reservoir of small war experience on the Planet at the time.

If you had really read about the British Afghan campaign you would have read that the fundamental problem was what so often destroyed military operations. Poor and incompetent leadership. With relief out of reach. Frankly a very old story.

Frankly no new news here. And their equipment was not superior to WW I US military equipment.

Not to mention the fact that the WW1 Doughboy (and his foreign counterparts) could rarely hit anything at more than a couple hundred meters unless the enemy was obliging enough to walk towards him slowly in open order. The inability of troops in that war and the next one to get the job done reliably with their service rifles is what led to the creation of the assault rifle -- and accompanying huge improvements in training.

Funny, the Germans made dispatch remarks about US Marines taking them apart with deadly and accurate long range rifle fire. By the way, you are right. The Germans did not expect that type of fire from any of the other allies.

Except of course the old and original British Expeditionary force in WW I. They stopped the German advance with almost nothing but very accurate rifle fire. (read about the “crazy minute” drill of the old professional British Army) Of course most of those professional soldiers were dead by the end of the campaign at the Somme, and the conscripts took over.

For KraigWY, here is another of MY alumni’s opinions on the subject. Somebody may listen to them, but probably not you.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news..._ammo_031010w/

Mattis pushed for 6.8mm ammo
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer

Posted : Friday Mar 12, 2010 15:01:07 EST

Before Marines in Afghanistan received enhanced 5.56mm rounds last month, an influential four-star general advocated behind the scenes for an option that packs even more punch: 6.8mm ammunition.

Three sources with knowledge of the Marine Corps’ acquisitions process confirmed Gen. James Mattis’ interest in the 6.8mm round, saying the head of Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., lobbied for it as recently as December while pushing broadly for better service-rifle ammo.

“It’s something he was definitely interested in,” said one source, speaking on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject. “He was concerned with the stopping power of the M855,” the standard 5.56mm round that the U.S. military has used for decades.

Instead, the Corps adopted enhanced 5.56mm Special Operations Science and Technology ammunition, commonly known as SOST rounds. Using an open-tip match round design common with sniper ammo, they are designed to be more accurate and more deadly than M855 rounds, staying on target better after penetrating windshields, car doors and other objects.

Mattis declined to comment, saying he is confident Lt. Gen. George Flynn, commander of Marine Corps Combat Development Command, is “dealing well with this complex issue.” Flynn could not be reached for comment.

Behind the scenes, Marine officials have discussed for years whether a larger-caliber round is necessary. Some have said the Corps should adopt an intermediate caliber, such as 6.8mm, or go back to 7.62mm, which was widely used until the M16 was fielded in the 1960s.

The Corps is still considering a swap to larger calibers, but if SOST continues to show promise, it may not be necessary, said Chief Warrant Officer-5 Jeffrey Eby, the Corps’ senior gunner. Marine officials “100 percent trust” the new round, he said, and are awaiting feedback from operating forces who are beginning to use it.

THE CALIBER QUESTION
The Corps first considered fielding 6.8mm ammo in 2007, after rank-and-file members of Special Operations Command designed it with their command’s approval to address deficiencies with the standard 5.56mm round, Eby said. Neither SOCom nor the Corps fielded it, in part due to the cost and logistics it would have required to make the change.

Designed to be fired from existing M4 and M16A4 service rifles after some modification, the 6.8mm special-purpose cartridge travels at higher speeds and inflicts more damage than the M855, but is lighter than standard 7.62mm ammo. The 6.8mm round is only slightly longer than 5.56mm ammo, meaning it would fit existing service-rifle magazines and lower receivers.

Adopting the intermediate caliber wouldn’t be easy, though. The ballistics are different than the 5.56mm rounds’, which would require the service to adjust training and adopt new optics for their service rifles, Eby said. It also would require ammunition manufacturers to reconfigure machinery, potentially costing the service tens of millions of dollars or more.

Fielding 6.8mm ammo also would result in new marksmanship challenges. Much like the 7.62mm M14, a 6.8mm rifle produces larger recoil than an M16A4 or M4, making it difficult for smaller Marines to keep the weapon on target, Eby said.

“We learned with the M14 that managing that recoil across the service, especially with small-stature women and men, is hard to do,” Eby said. “If we have problems today with bucking and flinching on the 5.56, you can quadruple that with 7.62. We have service-level concerns about [going] so big that you get the ultimate lethality at the expense of marksmanship.”

Brig. Gen. Michael Brogan, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command, told Marine Corps Times in mid-February that “there’s a long-going argument about the stopping power of 5.56 in general.” But he said even Marines don’t always fall after they’ve been shot by insurgents with multiple 7.62mm rounds, citing Navy Cross recipient Sgt. Maj. Brad Kasal, who was hit with seven 7.62mm rounds in Iraq in 2004 but survived and kept fighting.

“Does that mean that 7.62 rounds don’t have sufficient stopping power?” Brogan asked about Kasal’s actions. “I submit the answer is no. If there had been a central-nervous shot, it might have dropped him. The same is true with 5.56 ammunition. Location is more important than stopping power.”

By the way I have fought with both the 7.62 and the 5.56.

Go figure.

Fred
 
Nonsense - if we are at a disadvantage it's due to being hamstrung by rules that our enemies don't follow and spending too much time on silliness and not enough time of fighting. Having deployed to Iraq twice, I can tell you that leaders focus on stupid PC and other garrison crap too much and not on the big picture (for instance the requirement to wear reflective PT belts in a combat zone still baffles me). Yes, one big example of how we could be more effective is to eliminate the adherence to using hollowpoint ammo. There are many other examples, again, of how we are hamstrung by antiquated rules that don't apply in our conflicts around the world now. In many ways we are the redcoats marching to the beat of a drum in formation taking guerilla sniper shots... have we not learned how to fight an insurgency in hundreds of years?

To keep this on track, our weapons are pretty good. They aren't the best, but they are good. We will win due to our training and experience and dedication, and we will only lose if our politicians fail to support us.
 
Funny, the Germans made dispatch remarks about US Marines taking them apart with deadly and accurate long range rifle fire. By the way, you are right. The Germans did not expect that type of fire from any of the other allies.

Except of course the old and original British Expeditionary force in WW I. They stopped the German advance with almost nothing but very accurate rifle fire. (read about the “crazy minute” drill of the old professional British Army) Of course most of those professional soldiers were dead by the end of the campaign at the Somme, and the conscripts took over.

Like I said, if the other guy was nice enough to walk towards you in open order across cover-less no mans land, riflemen could make hits at range. Once people started figuring out that walking along waiting to catch a bullet was non-adaptive and started using more adaptive tactics, the performance of the infantryman with his rifle dropped dramatically.

It's worth noting that the idea of the intermediate assault rifle cartridge grows out of World War One, and was only reinforced by World War Two battlefield experience. If things were working so well I would think we'd see refinement of the full power bolt gun, not a push towards self-loading rifles and lighter calibers with inferior long range performance in favor of ruling the 0-300 realm.
 
Having used the 5.56 for two tours in Iraq, I think this article is BS. My second tour in particluar was in mostly open farm lands with areas of dense palm groves. In my experience the 5.56 works pretty decent at 300 plus yards if you have good shot placement. Ive seen several cases were sub optimal shots with the 7.62x51 didnt drop the bad guys. Ive also seen a case or two where good shot placement killed the bad guy, but he was able to run around a bit before he passed.

Just like the marine Corp article linked by Cheiftan states.... shot placement is more emportant than power. There were many WWI and WWII vets who survived 30-06, .303 and 8mm shots.

I also would like to know how a slightly bigger bullet, like the 6.8, is going to be so much more effective than a 62 or 77 grn 5.56 at long distance. Does it fragment at much lower than muzzle velocity? Either round is going to be going pretty slow at that distance (relative to MV) but would still probably drill right through you.

A 5.56 at that distance just puts a .22 caliber hole through you. What says the 6.8 isnt just going to put a .26 caliber hole through you?

Either one of those through the shoulder isnt going to be hugely effective. Either one of those through the heart/liver/lungs is probably going to kill you without immediate medical help.

Thats not to say Im against a bigger caliber. But if the main argument is for increased lethality at longer range, lets get something thats more than marginally more effective.
 
Didn't US Army field test Barrett M468-A1 (6.8 SPC) uppers with some SF units? I believe that field test was done with 16" uppers.

How about another field trial with 6.8 SPC, but with the 20" uppers and scopes? Should be cost effective - Heck Barrett may even toss in the uppers for a new trial if a new military contract is probable.

Any thoughts for the 6.8 SPC in 20" upper and scopes?
 
Like I said, if the other guy was nice enough to walk towards you in open order across cover-less no mans land, riflemen could make hits at range. Once people started figuring out that walking along waiting to catch a bullet was non-adaptive and started using more adaptive tactics, the performance of the infantryman with his rifle dropped dramatically.

Less imagination with more knowledge of actual history and of the developement of tactics, would give you a much better argument.

By June 1918, when the Marines and Germans first met in combat, the Germans were well into using their now fabled “Storm Trooper” Tactics in their last offensive of the First World War. Actually the Germans were one of the first of the WW I combatants to stop using the human wave type tactics. They didn’t have another major offensive after their Verdun offensive of 1916 until the last major offensive of 1918 which began in March of that year. The Chateau-Thierry/Belleau Wood fight fell within that defensive effort that first involved US troops in the defense.

American Marines were cited in GERMAN dispatches as being extremely effective and accurate with their rifle fire. This is on troops that DID NOT LINE UP FOR THEM. I can suggest some reading for you if you would like.

It's worth noting that the idea of the intermediate assault rifle cartridge grows out of World War One, and was only reinforced by World War Two battlefield experience. If things were working so well I would think we'd see refinement of the full power bolt gun, not a push towards self-loading rifles and lighter calibers with inferior long range performance in favor of ruling the 0-300 realm.

Actually the assault rifle cartride came out of the Second World War. The first World war spawned the Submachine gun and "automatic" rifle with full power rifle cartridges, known by some as simply a light machine gun. Sub guns were of pistol caliber.

The Germans went with an infantry squad built around a medium gun (MG 34, MG 42)vs a light machine gun/automatic rifle.

We Americans went one better and developed the first Semi Automatic Battle rifle for general issue. That gave a squad/section/fireteam built around the BAR and Garands. That was a lot of fire power for the infantry squad.

The Germans went with GP medium guns, and submachine guns MP 38 and MP 40.

26 years after the first World War the first true assault rifle is developed by the Germans, Sturmgewehr 44, or StG 44 .

AS to the development of full power self-loading rifles. What do you call the AR-10 and the SCAR 17 but fully developed full power calibers and being issued today.

And why one may ask? Because things were not working so well with the underpowered assault rifles. AS I stated above, I believe a mix and or choice is required, not just one or the other.

Damn pesky things those facts.

Go figure.

Fred
 
I believe the assault rifle (compact, full-auto, intermediate cartridge) concept is based on the idea that conflicts occur at close range (300M and less), that wounding an enemy is preferred to killing him (a wounded man uses resources, a dead man does not), and that whomever throws the most lead in the air wins the fight.

I am not any sort of military expert, but it does seem to me that most current military rifles are intended for short range shooting and the conditions in Afghanistan are often contrary to this model. Maybe a more powerful rifle that can deliver more energy at longer range is needed. But do we really need an $8,000 rifle? I bet any number of manufacturers could fill an order for 30,000 fiberglas stocked M1As (full-auto not needed or wanted for this sort of use) at under $1,000 per unit.

Or, if the bad guys are more than 300 meters away, call in an artillery strike.

Or, if artillery or air attack is too sloppy for surrounding civilians, bring up one of the guys with a painted face and a Remington 700.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top